example:  In Hawaiian society before the arrival of Europeans the authority of those who were rulers was sanctioned by the priests (the kahunas), and a complex system of  kapu reinforced the position of both rulers and priests.  Individuals knew what was expected of them from birth, and the idea that an individual might want a different set of laws or decide to profess a different set of beliefs about the gods would be completely alien.  What was, was right. 

example:  In the Roman Empire it was to be accepted that the emperor was in some manner divine and his statues were to be worshipped in the same manner as were statues of the gods.  Beginning late in the first century CE the followers of a provincial Jewish teacher executed for subversion refused to engage in such practices, and in an effort to assert political supremacy they became subject to legal action, including a death penalty.  This extended even to young women who had converted to the new sect and refused to accept the husbands chosen for them by their families.  During this period members of the sect accepted their own executions as an indication they were following in the steps of their teacher, and in their churches included bodily parts of  those who had been killed for their faith.  (Los Angeles Catholics may remember that the original cathedral was dedicated to Saint Vibiana, revered as "virgin and martyr," and what was believed to be the skeleton of a young woman who had died violently in Roman times was on view for veneration  in a glass case inside the main altar.)

example:  In the late eighteenth century prominent spokesmen for the American colonials drafted a statement (the Declaration of Independence) declaring there were intrinsic rights that individuals possessed which set a limit to government authority.  Still later, as an addendum to the country's second constitution, there were attached ten statements that reinforced this idea and included a prohibition on the national government providing financial support for any specific religious organization.  What was striking was that this was such a clear reversal of the concept of a theocracy (a government based on religion) characterizing the original colonial government of one of its most important states, but within two centuries more the concept took hold in the courts that many private practices, whether based on religion or not, could not be regulated by the government.  Among these were the practice of birth control and abortions in the first two-thirds of pregnancy.

--Many Americans do believe that a fetus, even in the first months of pregnancy, should be considered a human being and base this belief on the idea that a human soul and therefore a new person is created by God at the moment of conception.  Consequently, they insist that the Supreme Court ruling on abortion either should be reversed or canceled through a new amendment to the Constitution.  Do you think this would in effect violate the separation of church and state by allowing a specifically religious outlook--one not shared by all religious groups (Jewish belief, for instance, does not see someone as a person until the time of birth)--to be dominant? 

--Some religious groups, most notably the Christian Scientists and the Jehovah's Witnesses, reject blood transfusions as a violation of their religious principles.  In many states this has led to legal action when children are not allowed to receive the medical care normally provided.  Do you think the parents should be seen as having a legal right to raise their families according to their own understanding of what God demands of them, even if this might lead to the deaths of their children?

--In wartime, most recently during the Vietnam conflict,  it has been expected that our government can require its young men to be trained as soldiers who may be ordered to kill in the line of duty.  From early in the last century members of historic "peace churches" (Quakers, Adventists, and some others) have been allowed the status of conscientious objectors, and during the Vietnam period this was extended to others who opposed participating in all wars on the basis of  sustained philosophical reflection.  Do you think this present outlook is wrong and that there should be a distinction between those who reject war on specifically religious grounds and those whose moral outook is not necessarily based on religion?

--Some religious traditions (the Mormons until late in the nineteenth century and Islam today) either allow or may even encourage polygamy.  The Supreme Court in the late nineteenth century did rule against the Mormons in 1879 by upholding the federal law against polygamy, arguing that a government could set limits to what was practiced in the name of religion and suggesting even in the ruling that not to prohibit the "barbarous practice" of polygamy would leave the door open to those who might insist on human sacrifice as part of their religion.   Even after official Mormon church changed its teaching in 1880, splinter groups (such as the one imagined in the HBO series "Big Love"), continue to argue that they should have the right to continue plural households.  What do you think should be the right approach--to allow practices that may go against dominant values but do not involve clear harm to others or to restrict such practices on the basis that there must be one law that all should obey?